likely inquiry in Pennsylvania

2025“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)).

2021Inquirer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.”).

2022Simply put, the revocation was not anticipatory as he was on probation. - 12 - Supreme Court has explained, “preponderance of the evidence is ‘a more likely than not inquiry,’ supported by the greater weight of the evidence; something a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a decision.” Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410, 453 (Pa. 2017) (citations omitted).

2021As our Supreme Court has explained, “preponderance of the evidence is ‘a more likely than not inquiry,’ supported by the greater weight of the evidence; something a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a decision.” Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410, 453 (Pa. 2017) (citations omitted).

2023See 50 P.S. § 7301. -7- Vencil, 152 A.3d at 242 . “[T]he appropriate standard of proof applicable to the physician’s record findings is a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is generally applicable to civil matters and has been classified as ‘a more likely than not inquiry,’ supported by the greater weight of the evidence; something a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a decision.” Id. at 246 (citations omitted).

2023See 50 P.S. § 7301. -7- Vencil, 152 A.3d at 242 . “[T]he appropriate standard of proof applicable to the physician’s record findings is a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is generally applicable to civil matters and has been classified as ‘a more likely than not inquiry,’ supported by the greater weight of the evidence; something a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a decision.” Id. at 246 (citations omitted).

2023Chester Univ. v. Schackner, 124 A.3d 382, 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)).

2023Chester Univ. v. Schackner, 124 A.3d 382, 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)).

2026“The preponderance of the evidence is the lowest burden of proof in the administration of justice, and it is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly in one’s favor.” Commonwealth v. Easter, 331 A.3d 675 , 680 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Watson, 292 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa. Super. 2023) (defining preponderance of the evidence as “tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” (citation omitted)).

2026“The test is conjunctive; the appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that each of these factors has been met in order for a new trial to be warranted.” Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Watson, 292 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa. Super. 2023) (defining “preponderance of the evidence” as “tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” (citation omitted)). 15 In its appellate brief, the Commonwealth concedes that “[Appellant] has met his burden to establish the jurisdiction of the PCRA court to review his clai

2023Our Supreme Court has defined “preponderance of the evidence” as “tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 35 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Rabold, 951 A.2d 329, 341 (Pa. 2008) (“the placement of the burden with the defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not offend constitutional norms.”). -7- This Court has explained: To plead the defense of insanity suggests that the defendant committed the act, but was not legally culpable.

2023Our Supreme Court has defined “preponderance of the evidence” as “tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1 , 35 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Rabold, 951 A.2d 329 , 341 (Pa. 2008) (“the placement of the burden with the defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not offend constitutional norms.”). -7- This Court has explained: To plead the defense of insanity suggests that the defendant committed the act, but was not legally culpable.

2026It is a more likely than not inquiry, supported by the greater weight of the evidence; something a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a decision.” E.A.M., 173 A.3d at 320 (cleaned up).

2026III, 173 A.3d 313, 320 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2025Or, stated differently, “it is tantamount to a more likely than not standard.” Com. v. $6,425.00 Seized from Esquilin, 880 A.2d 523, 555 (Pa. 2005) (cleaned up).

2023“A preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a more likely than not standard.” -4- Commonwealth v. Esquilin, 880 A.2d 523, 529 (Pa. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2022Moreover, it is well settled that “[p]robation may be revoked on the basis of conduct which falls short of criminal conduct.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2014)). -7- In Koger, the defendant was sentenced to probation after he was convicted of possessing child pornography and criminal use of a communication facility.

2021It is well settled that “[p]robation may be revoked on the basis of conduct which falls short of criminal conduct.” Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2025“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)).

2023Common pleas weighed Objectors’ submissions and concluded that Objectors presented sufficient evidence to establish that such potential harm exists if their names and home addresses are disclosed to the public.13 Mindful of common pleas’ role as factfinder, Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office v. Wereschagin, 257 A.3d 1280 , 1297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021), and that the burden of proof in a RTKL matter is by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a more likely than not inquiry, Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019), we discern no error in common ple

2021“The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is ‘the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.’” Smith on behalf of Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 161 A.3d 1049 , 1059 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted).

2021“The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is ‘the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.’” Smith on behalf of 7 Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 161 A.3d 1049 , 1059 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted).

2021“For the second prong, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, a more likely than not inquiry, that she is at a continued risk of harm from the defendant.” K.N.B., 227 A.3d at 926 -5- (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2021“For the second prong, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, a more likely than not inquiry, that she is at a continued risk of harm from the defendant.” K.N.B., 227 A.3d at 926 -5- (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2026“The test is conjunctive; the appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that each of these factors has been met in order for a new trial to be warranted.” Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Watson, 292 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa. Super. 2023) (defining “preponderance of the evidence” as “tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” (citation omitted)). 15 In its appellate brief, the Commonwealth concedes that “[Appellant] has met his burden to establish the jurisdiction of the PCRA court to review his clai

2026Where a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, “the Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not -6- obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); see also id., Comment (stating that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence). [“A preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 340 A.3d 297 , 308-309 (Pa. 2025) (citation, brackets, ellipses and quotation marks omitted).] The Commonwealth “satisfies its prepon

2026Where a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, “the Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not -6- obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); see also id., Comment (stating that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence). [“A preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 340 A.3d 297 , 308-309 (Pa. 2025) (citation, brackets, ellipses and quotation marks omitted).] The Commonwealth “satisfies its prepon

2026Where a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, “the Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not -6- obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); see also id., Comment (stating that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence). [“A preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 340 A.3d 297 , 308-309 (Pa. 2025) (citation, brackets, ellipses and quotation marks omitted).] The Commonwealth “satisfies its prepon

2026This Court has stated the suppression of evidence “is a most extreme remedy that can be justified only when it is necessary to vindicate fundamental rights or to correct or deter police abuse.” Commonwealth v. - 12 - Huntington, 924 A.2d 1252, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2026Jones v. Foods on First III, Inc., 345 A.3d 231 , 247 (Pa. Super. 2025); see also Medina v. Green, 348 A.3d 1113 , 1117 (Pa. Super. 2025) (“A preponderance of the evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., enough to tip a scale slightly.”); Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Anonymous Att’y, 331 A.3d 523 , 534 (Pa. 2025) (observing that a preponderance of the evidence standard “is the lowest burden applied in civil cases.”). - 13 - “The three elements needed to establish breach of contract are the existence of a contract, a breach of duty imposed by the contract, and

2026Finally, assessing the “[c]redibility of witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony is within the exclusive province of the [trial court] as fact finder.” Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

2026This Court has stated that in evaluating the foregoing factors, “a court should consider the integrity of the alleged after-discovered evidence, the motive of those offering the evidence, and the overall strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.” Padillas, 997 A.2d at 365 (emphasis added).

2026Where a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, “the Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not -6- obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); see also id., Comment (stating that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence). [“A preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 340 A.3d 297 , 308-309 (Pa. 2025) (citation, brackets, ellipses and quotation marks omitted).] The Commonwealth “satisfies its prepon

2025See Davis, 122 A.3d at 1191 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2025In addition, “[w]here a record falls within an exemption under Section 708(b) [of the RTKL], it is not a public record as defined by the RTKL and an agency is not required to redact the record.” Castillo v. Pa. State Police, 310 A.3d 831 , 836 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (quoting Pa. State Police v. Off. of Open Recs., 5 A.3d 473, 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Del.